Literature DB >> 21131584

Accuracy of screening mammography varies by week of menstrual cycle.

Diana L Miglioretti1, Rod Walker, Donald L Weaver, Diana S M Buist, Stephen H Taplin, Patricia A Carney, Robert D Rosenberg, Mark B Dignan, Zhuo Tracy Zhang, Emily White.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate of screening mammography according to week of menstrual cycle among premenopausal women.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate of 387,218 screening mammograms linked to 1283 breast cancers in premenopausal women according to week of menstrual cycle were studied by using prospectively collected information from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Logistic regression analysis was used to test for differences in mammography performance according to week of menstrual cycle, adjusting for age and registry.
RESULTS: Overall, screening mammography performance did not differ according to week of menstrual cycle. However, when analyses were subdivided according to prior mammography, different patterns emerged. For the 66.6% of women who had undergone regular screening (mammography had been performed within the past 2 years), sensitivity was higher in week 1 (79.5%) than in subsequent weeks (week 2, 70.3%; week 3, 67.4%; week 4, 73.0%; P = .041). In the 17.8% of women who underwent mammography for the first time in this study, sensitivity tended to be lower during the follicular phase (week 1, 72.1%; week 2, 80.4%; week 3, 84.6%; week 4, 93.8%; P = .051). Sensitivity did not vary significantly by week in menstrual cycle in women who had undergone mammography more than 3 years earlier. There were no clinically meaningful differences in specificity or cancer detection rate.
CONCLUSION: Premenopausal women who undergo regular screening may benefit from higher sensitivity of mammography if they schedule screening mammography during the 1st week of their menstrual cycle. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100974/-/DC1. © RSNA, 2010

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21131584      PMCID: PMC3029886          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100974

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  43 in total

1.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment.

Authors:  W A Berg; C Campassi; P Langenberg; M J Sexton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Mammographic density changes during the menstrual cycle.

Authors:  G Ursin; Y R Parisky; M C Pike; D V Spicer
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Meta-analysis of sequential luteal-cycle-associated changes in human breast tissue.

Authors:  H W Simpson; G Cornélissen; G Katinas; F Halberg
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Performance of first mammography examination in women younger than 40 years.

Authors:  Bonnie C Yankaskas; Sebastien Haneuse; Julie M Kapp; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta Geller; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-05-03       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Reproductive and hormonal factors associated with mammographic breast density by age (United States).

Authors:  A Y El-Bastawissi; E White; M T Mandelson; S H Taplin
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.506

6.  Cell proliferation, apoptosis, and expression of Bcl-2 and Bax in non-lactating human breast epithelium in relation to the menstrual cycle and reproductive history.

Authors:  F Feuerhake; W Sigg; E A Höfter; P Unterberger; U Welsch
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Peggy L Porter; Constance Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Emily White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-10-06       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening.

Authors:  S Ciatto; C Visioli; E Paci; M Zappa
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-01-26       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  9 in total

1.  Usefulness of feature analysis of breast-specific gamma imaging for predicting malignancy.

Authors:  Eun Kyoung Choi; Jooyeon Jamie Im; Chang Suk Park; Yong-An Chung; Kijun Kim; Jin Kyoung Oh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Effect of menstrual cycle phase on background parenchymal uptake at molecular breast imaging.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Amy Lynn Conners; Celine M Vachon; Michael K O'Connor; Lynne T Shuster; Adam C Bartley; Deborah J Rhodes
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-06-22       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 3.  Diffusion-weighted breast MRI: Clinical applications and emerging techniques.

Authors:  Savannah C Partridge; Noam Nissan; Habib Rahbar; Averi E Kitsch; Eric E Sigmund
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 4.  Extracellular MicroRNA in liquid biopsy: applicability in cancer diagnosis and prevention.

Authors:  Alberto Izzotti; Stefano Carozzo; Alessandra Pulliero; Dinara Zhabayeva; Jean Louis Ravetti; Rakhmet Bersimbaev
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 6.166

5.  Background 99mTc-methoxyisobutylisonitrile uptake of breast-specific gamma imaging in relation to background parenchymal enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Hai-Jeon Yoon; Yemi Kim; Jee Eun Lee; Bom Sahn Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-09-13       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Circulating micro-RNAs as potential blood-based markers for early stage breast cancer detection.

Authors:  Michael G Schrauder; Reiner Strick; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Pamela L Strissel; Laura Kahmann; Christian R Loehberg; Michael P Lux; Sebastian M Jud; Arndt Hartmann; Alexander Hein; Christian M Bayer; Mayada R Bani; Swetlana Richter; Boris R Adamietz; Evelyn Wenkel; Claudia Rauh; Matthias W Beckmann; Peter A Fasching
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Do malignant cells sleep at night?

Authors:  Luis Enrique Cortés-Hernández; Zahra Eslami-S; Antoine M Dujon; Mathieu Giraudeau; Beata Ujvari; Frédéric Thomas; Catherine Alix-Panabières
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 13.583

8.  Identification of MicroRNAs as Diagnostic Biomarkers for Breast Cancer Based on the Cancer Genome Atlas.

Authors:  Jungho Kim
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-11

9.  Diagnostic Value of Circulating miR-202 in Early-Stage Breast Cancer in South Korea.

Authors:  Jungho Kim; Sunyoung Park; Dasom Hwang; Seung Il Kim; Hyeyoung Lee
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 2.430

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.